Charles Navarro

Just me personally, if I were to own a new water-cooled Porsche, I wouldn't use an API SM rated oil. There are plenty of API SH-SL oils that are ACEA approved AND are on the "approved" list. I also would not use long drain intervals, or at least anything near as long as Porsche has been advocating. Again, this is my opinion and I don't own a water-cooled Porsche. :-)

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

John:

All I can say is that things are not as hunky-dory as Porsche would have one believe from using the Mobil 1 0w-40 product.

If I owned a 986-987-996-997 series car, I would not be using M1's 0w-40 product without fortification. I'm looking for a compatible product for those Variocam-equipped cars that will satisfy both Porsche's requirements and my own for maximum engine life. I'm not too concerned that the cats might not last 150K miles.

There are plenty of good oils available for the air-cooled cars that fill the bill very nicely.

Peter Zimmermann

Charles, Steve W., Doug: Is there a glossary of identifications/explanations for the almost unending supply of abbreviations (A3/B3, UOA, API SM, API SH-SL, ACEA, TBN, street legal, not street legal, to name a few) that are tossed about in the text of this lengthy but important discussion? I know that such a list would make it far easier for me to figure out what is being said... Don't forget, when I sold my shop and did my last engine, in '99, we just put Kendall GT-1 in everything built until the synthetic era began, and then used M1 in those cars. Now there seems to be as many oil types and viscosities available as headache remedies in the local Rite-Aid, and apparently not many of them will do what we need them to. One thing that I'm hopelessly confused about is exactly where the red line is set on engines that won't suffer by using oils with reduced Zinc levels (I mean, they must last through their warranty period), and, with correct owner/driver technique will a 911SC, a '71S, or an '88 911 Turbo live a full life using an-off-the shelf oil that meets Porsche's viscosity and oil change requirements, or are only cars affected that are driven in a manner somewhere between overly-enthusiastic and abusive?

Doug Hillary

Hi,
Charles - perhaps if you had said a "SM - GF4" lubricant you would NOT have frightened off a lot of water cooled engine Porsche owners
A SM/SL/SH/SG-CF GF3 lubricant of the correct viscosity will NOT harm a water cooled engine Porsche - especially if it is Porsche Approved and meets ACEA's A3/B3/B4 quality Approval!

Steve W - A study of Warranty and other user based performance of the Porsche Approved and mandatory M1 0w-40 lubricant used by Porsche in Australia shows that it is an excellent performer. The same applies to the appropriate Mercedes Benz engine families here in this Country. Both of these Companys have many high mileage engines that have used this product since new with excellent results
Mobil have confirmed this as well!

It does NOT require the addition of any supplementary additives - it is a very robust engine oil and it has an unparrelled service record over many years

Peter - I will contact you off Forum with some reference points. It is apparent that many people do not understand that Euro engined vehicles should use Euro (or Manufacturer) specced lubricants! The API's rating system has been a contentious matter for several decades!!
New ashless anti wear (AW) additives when combined with the lower levels of "Zinc" (various forms) are proving to be better performers than those using older additives and high "Zinc" levels

I would not be using a GF4 rated lubricant in engines not intended for it! I would certainly use it with confidence in engines where it is recommended

But the real purpose of this thread was to answer the question of suitable engine lubricants for early air cooled engines
IMHO earlier air-cooled engines are best served by using a 15w-40 "mixed fleet" HDEO (API's >CG-4/SH) subject to ambient limits - and the Stuttgart based Engineers think so too.
On rebuilding with modern seal materials etc a synthetic lubricant may be suitable even if not being able to add significantly to engine life
The Stuttgart Engineers also think that heavier mineral lubricants (20w-50) as used in their old and very valuable race engines should be heated to 80C before loading the engine - food for thought?

Regards

bgiere

Doug,

Are you seeing HDEO CJ4 oils working well in the air cooled engines? I've been using Delo/Rotella for many years in my 1987 3.2 and I am planning to continue with that strategy. What are your thoughts? Thanks for your advice, I always enjoyed reading your posts at BITOG...some of the best IMHO.

Doug Hillary

Hi,
bgiere - IMHO you are "on the right tram" in using the lubricants you do

I am unaware of any negative reports about CJ4 lubricants when used in their intended application

CJ4 is a very robust specification which has been endorsed by all of the diesel engine manufacturers that matter. Not really unexpected really, the API used most of them at consultative Committee level to formulate this specification. This is what ACEA has done of course since about 1994 (first specs 1996) - the ACEA is not driven by the Oil Industry like the API is!

As an example Shell's mixed fleet Rimula Super 15w-40 (Rimula was a Porsche factory fill for 356, 912 and 911s for many years) is both CJ-4 and back to CF4, and SM/Sl rated. It has a HTHS viscosity of >3.5cSt which is the minimum Porsche engines require.
Importantly is also has CAT, DD, Cummins, Mack and Volvo VDS4 Manufacturer Approvals

Such specification lubricants with similar Approvals from other Oil Companies will do the same job

As you will be aware from BITOG I have used HD engine oils in "problematic" petrol engines since the late 1950s - initially in BMC, VW and Porsche engines
One reason "mixed fleet" HDEOs are so good in low use engines like in most Porsche cars (especially older air cooled types) is that they have a high acid neutralising capacity, great boundary lubrication abilities, excellent foaming resistance, viscosity retention and deposit control etc. Low use engine tend to suffer camshaft pitting through corrosion if lubricants with a low acid neutralising capacity are used. These lubricants also tolerate very high temperatures (combustion/engine) and turbo-charger operation with ease and will have a HTHS vis of at least Porsche's minimum

Of course as you know the 15w-40 viscosity is suitable for use in Porsche engines in an ambient spread from -10C to >40C

I hope this is of help
Regards

bgiere

Thank you Doug, I appreciate the info!

rappalm

I just spent the last hour reading the VOA Oil Test Results at http://www.lnengineering.com/oiltable.htm. Talk about being confused, from what I am reading from that link, the Brad Penn oil tested lower than 0.12% for Zn and P, yet there are folks here recommending that particular oil. What gives?

Mike Rappa
87 Carrera Coupe

GothingNC

Mike,

Here are some info from Charles about BP he posted on Pelican ( To save Charles some time typing replies)

That is the reason I like the Brad Penn 20w50 so much. It's not ultimately concerned with reducing internal friction to improve fuel mileage (or to give you more HP). That makes it very unique. It does however have the highest HTHS vis @ 150C of any oil we have tested. Mobil 1 V-Twin is 5.8 cSt and Amsoil Harley is 6.1 cSt - Brad Penn 20w50 is 6.8 cSt, all at 150C for the HTHS vis.

All of Brad Penn's formulations have some excellent film stregnths. Even their 0w30 has a higher HTHS vis @ 150C of 4.1 cSt compared to M1 0w40, which is ony 3.6 cSt.

Although Swepco doesn't test for HTHS, I would imagine considering their similar paraffinic base stock that the HTHS vis @ 150C would be in the low 5's or high 4's.

I know that at least here in town, the marine shop here uses at least 20w50 and in some cases even a straight 60 wt racing oil, but we're talking BIG HP, at least 2000HP marine drag boats.

Another:

I can't say why the Brad Penn ran cooler - when I had a customer do in car testing of oils (with a full 24-channel datalogger), he did notice the engine ran smooth and lower oil temps with the Brad Penn compared to Castrol GTX. In the 800 mi segments he ran with each oil, the UOA showed the Brad Penn to hold up as well as M1 V-Twin and Amsoil Harley, with the bonus of having equally low wear metals in the UOA with the Brad Penn. That's how we found out what others had confirmed, that GTX is not very good. It used up about 45% of the Zn and P where the other oils had used up about 15%. GTX has also become a 30wt, where the other oils were spot on with the VOA viscosities.

If anyone ever questions the high temperature stability of Brad Penn, I have a neat example of how damn good it is. One of my customers has a F-prod 914, running the Brad Penn. He had an oil cooling issue and was running 320-400F oil temps during a single day - I think he said he got in about 6 hours of track time running these temps. He had a big oil pump, so had good oil pressure, even at 400F (gauge pegged), dry sump, about 15 quart capacity (~180hp four cylinder type 4). It was a backup motor, made of used parts, so he really didn't care if it died. It did end up floating a valve - the valve springs were toast after being boiled for hours, but amazingly, everything in the engine looked perfect, bearings included (which were new, coated by Calico). The Brad Penn did not smell burn nor did it thin out or thicken up. We were amazed. They really have their base stock nailed.
__________________
I just made the switch to Brad Penn.

John
__________________

Brads911sc

I may be a total novice on oils... but for 20 years I have used Castrol GTX 20-50 here in the south with no problems. If I can drive 3,000 miles a year for ten years... 30k total... in normal weekend driving.. then i really dont care if there is alittle wear... its ten years... right? lets keep this in perspective for most of us weekend drivers... maybe it makes a big difference in the track world or in the world where this is your daily driver.. but this is my third Porsche and I really havent seen any issues. Just my opinion...

Pedro356C

+1 here...the 356 used to drink Castrol GTX as well...fresh 4 quarts (and a half) every 1000 miles...overkill? Of couse...

rappalm

Let me be more specific to my own post: if Brad Penn is testing low on ZDDP, and M1 15w50 tests low as well (but BOTH are reported hi in ZDDP from their manufacturers), then can't a person conclude that the lab testing is not 100% accurate? Has anyone had any problems running Mobil 1 15w50 in an 80's 911?

Mike Rappa

HarryD

The objection to Castrol is not so much it is not good oil as it does not last like some of the competing products. If you run short change intervals, it appears you will be ok. That said, I have heard several engine builders say that when they open an engine, they can tell if the owner used Castrol for most of it's life.

Reading the Very Long "Ultimate Oil Thread" at Pelican (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?p=3553328) reveals Charles Navarro's objection to Castrol.

Some excerpts from psots by Charles Navarro:

Brads911sc

Thanks for the education Harry. I just bought this 83 911 SC (93k miles) and Ill switch to Brad Penn at my next change. I am on a short interval... 3k a year, change it twice... so about 1500 miles... Didnt mean to question the wisdom of the experts. Thanks. Brad

sig_a

I've not had problems using Castrol, Rotella CJ4, or Mobil 1 15W50 synthetic. And at the risk of being branded an iconoclast regarding the sacrosanctity of Brad Penn and Swepco products, its rational to think Shell, Mobil, BP etc know more about motor oil than the experts on these Porsche boards.